Waverley Borough Council’s hopes of fixing its self-inflicted planning scandal aren’t going smoothly after its promised review drew “exactly no applications” from residents hit with huge developer fees.

Homeowners began receiving massive Community Infrastructure Levies (CILs) last year for works carried out on their homes.

These charges are usually reserved for large-scale developers to go towards the cost of infrastructure or community benefits.

Instead, residents have been charged for failing to navigate complex planning bureaucracy and were stung with fees they could have been exempt from, with people reportedly being threatened with five-figure sums and even imprisonment to cover the charges.

Pledging to look into the matter, WBC announced it would carry out its own discretionary review into any case – and lined up an independent senior barrister to assess each application on a case-by-case basis.

But since launching not a single person has gone through the process after they were told the council’s decision would be final, and the remedial actions unclear.

The Council insists people should trust the process and should supply a written statement outlining their case with any supporting evidence.

The review is being kept as open as possible, WBC added, with a barrister having the scope to recommend how strictly CIL liability is enforced in cases where mistakes were made elsewhere.

Councillor Paul Follows, WBC leader said: “We are likely talking about quite individual types of error.

“We’ve specifically and clarified again we are not blocking any type of error from being assessed by this process.

“It may be that the response is quite specific to an individual.

“Yes, the enforcement policy is probably the primary vehicle by which that will be achieved but we don’t know until we’ve actually assessed the cases.

“As of right now, despite the amount of people that have come to speak about this and the number of times they have, there have been exactly no applications to the discretionary review.”

He added: “We will need to assess individual cases in terms of specific remedy.

“We have established the broadest possible classes of council error as well as opening the possibility to other types of error.”

Cllr Follows referred to the role of the Local Government Ombudsman in relation to CIL decisions.

The council has stated since: “There are two appeal mechanisms relating to CIL charges, the Planning Inspectorate, and the Valuation Office Agency.

“If a resident believes there has been maladministration, unfair treatment, or a failure in due process related to a CIL matter, they also have the right to raise a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman.

“As the LGO has confirmed, it does not function as an appeal body and does not reconsider the merits of a decision itself.

“Instead, it investigates complaints about whether councils have followed proper procedures and acted fairly.

“In that sense, while residents cannot ‘appeal’ a CIL decision through the LGO in the traditional sense, they can ask the Ombudsman to review how the decision was made, if they believe the council has not followed due process.”